brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:User rights requests
Well, I'm not sure if I'm the only one here... but ever since chat reopened we've had a steady stream of failing requests for chat moderator. Most of the RfAs also fail these days. All of the recent RfBs have passed. Therefore, it would seem that something in the current system is a bit broken. First, I'd like to propose that requests for chat moderator, administrator and bureaucrat each have an independent page. Let's make the system a bit simpler too, without subpages. Second, I will make a nice detailed page for both adminship and chat moderator, explaining what people usually look for in candidates for those rights, and perhaps a flow chart that a candidate can use to see if they in fact would pass. Items like "I have recently had a conflict with another user" would direct the user towards waiting to file their request, etc. Third, a change to the way RfBs are handled. Rather than a two week discussion which invariably passes, let's shorten it to five days. If there are no concerns brought up in five days, the request will be passed. If there are, it can go for two weeks to determine if consensus exists. To be completely honest, I'd also support changing user rights requests back into a straw poll, though requiring people to provide a reason for their vote. Things do get messy with the discussion system that we use, and I'm not sure how beneficial it is to those kinds of requests. 15:12, April 14, 2012 (UTC) :I have to say, I'm not sure yet... Maybe... :: Sounds like something we need. 15:15, April 14, 2012 (UTC) * I sometimes see people nominating themselves for chat mod/admin without reading the rules first. Instead of being deleted though, it's filled with comments like "No this is pointless because you haven't been here long enough so it's not allowed" instead of being deleted on sight. I think we could possibly make a template for when someone nominates someone for chat mod/adminship/b'crat, similar to the template we have for chat bans but with different semantic fields which say how many edits the nominator user has, how long they've been active, reason for nomination, has it been accepted etc., so that we can see that the request is valid without having to go through contribs and the like. I think this would be possible. Your RfB reform proposal is also a good idea, concerns from existing admins should be taken very seriously if there are any, bureaucrat tools are not something that we'd like someone we're really not sure about in control of. If that makes sense. - 15:33, April 14, 2012 (UTC) *Per king kon [[User:Prisinorzero|'Prisinor']][[User_talk:Prisinorzero|'zero']] 17:34, April 14, 2012 (UTC) * Per everything KON and Ajr said. :P * Yeah. And an edit limit for chatmod reqs. I know chat has nothing to do with edits, but if you've only made 10 edits here, chances are you're not mature enough for chatmod. (This might encourage editing aswell???) *: Nah, we should just snow delete them on sight if they're too new. In other words, you admins need to pay more attention :P FB100Z • talk • 19:13, April 14, 2012 (UTC) * Support Also, make an editcount of chatmod, they DO need to be trusted on this site with editing. -- 22:12, April 14, 2012 (UTC) **Maybe 500 edits? 01:39, April 15, 2012 (UTC) ***I'd say more 250. -- 01:51, April 15, 2012 (UTC) ****100 edits I say.--Brick bobby - we need a CJC signal 06:40, April 15, 2012 (UTC) * Per combo of NXT/Brick bobby. 09:30, April 15, 2012 (UTC) ** I'd say over 100. 200 at least. [[User:Agent Charge|'Charge']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'talk']] Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 23:40, April 15, 2012 (UTC) *Ban user rights requests if the user has been blocked or banned from chat in the past month. It would stop a lot of silly of silly requests and we don't want admins/chat mods who do things they are meant to be stopping --Brick bobby - we need a CJC signal 07:31, April 18, 2012 (UTC) *OK, so it looks like there is pretty clear consensus to implement these changes, except for the voting one. Let's have a nice poll on that now. Straw poll Should we go back to straw polls for user rights requests? Users will need 100 edits to vote, and opposers must provide more than a signature. I don't think that the system of discussion is working well for that particular area of the project. BTW, the below system isn't how we would vote, that was just a bored history/polysci major. Aye lobby # 20:40, April 21, 2012 (UTC) # ~ CJC 20:43, April 21, 2012 (UTC) # 20:46, April 21, 2012 (UTC) # Should we move the edit count higher? Say, 250? #Aye, they have this on potter even for voting for the did you know facts. [[User:Prisinorzero|'Prisinor']][[User_talk:Prisinorzero|'zero']] 20:49, April 21, 2012 (UTC) #Hmm... I don't see why not.--[[User:WCDDoherty|'WCDD']][[User_talk:WCDDoherty|'oherty']] 21:11, April 21, 2012 (UTC) # Sometimes, simplicity is the way to go. (however:what about if the user has less then 100 edits here, but is a respected user elsewhere?) #:Then they should be allowed to vote. Common sense should still apply here, and if there is ever a doubt over whether or not someone should be able to, we should let them. 21:21, April 21, 2012 (UTC) # Sure. -- 00:30, April 22, 2012 (UTC) # Do I need a reason here? 00:33, April 22, 2012 (UTC) #Yes 00:37, April 22, 2012 (UTC) #Yes, so also 100 edits to be nominated for chat mod as well --'User:Brick bobby' User talk: Brick bobby 07:04, April 22, 2012 (UTC) # 07:59, April 22, 2012 (UTC) # Definitely. About the poll though- would it be more than half the votes makes it a pass, or go back to the 70% thing? 08:27, April 22, 2012 (UTC) #:70% majority at least, I should think. 14:58, April 22, 2012 (UTC) # - 08:49, April 22, 2012 (UTC) # Yes, it makes a lot more sense. # I will support a 80% majority. So many administrators, and alot of them have gone inactive, maybe we should try to make the number higher. If you want to keep it at 70, fine, but that won't change much. - 14:44, April 23, 2012 (UTC) # No lobby #-I still think that we will get fairly new users, with reasons, just not very good reasons. "He is awesome and he made a sig for me." is no way as good a reason as "I have concerns with the users maturity. See here for example." Comments * By the way most of your supports above would be struck if we did use straw polls. Just sayin'. ** Well.... yours has a redlink :P 10:32, April 22, 2012 (UTC) *** Your ones are real things, not examples :P ****Actually, all of the supports in this straw poll above are fine. They all reach the proposed 100 edit barrier. 19:41, April 22, 2012 (UTC) *****Don't tell me "must provide more than a signature" only applies to opposers? ******Out of the supports, 7 only provided a signature, or a "yes" and a signature", 8 gave a comment but not a reason, and only 1 gave a reason (well, if you say "Sometimes, simplicity is the way to go." is a reason). *******TBH I don't see why supporters would need to provide a reason. In a process like RfA, we should consider all candidates unless evidence can be brought up against them. It is also generally much harder to articulate all of the points why you would vote for something rather than against them. ajr 20:10, April 23, 2012 (UTC) ********Well personally, I would say the idea of not needing a reason to support, but needing a reason to oppose is ludicrous. *********How so? How is saying "user is mature, trusted, etc" any more productive than just signing? A support on an RfA has some implied meanings, but an oppose certainly does not. There is a huge difference between saying "the user threatens to ban anyone who disagrees with him" and just leaving a signature. I guess what I'm also trying to get at is that RfAs should pass by default, unless there are good reasons brought up to suggest why a candidate would not be suitable. 17:45, April 24, 2012 (UTC) **********I sort of know what you're saying, but I still see a situation where a user popular among the community gets through a RfA because many users who they are friends with support, even though there are some serious problems in the oppose section. ***********Yeah, but unfortunately there really isn't anything either system can do to prevent that. If we force people to use support reasons, I doubt they will actually be good (like the supports with the current discussion system). 18:21, April 24, 2012 (UTC) ************Alright. If we did have a situation where there we serious concerns in the oppose section, but the user was getting through because of the sheer number of supports, we might have to use a bit of discretion. *************That's a reasonable suggestion. Common sense should still be part of the process :) 18:05, April 25, 2012 (UTC) **************Just had to put <-- that in... HOLY CRAP MORE OPEN SPACE THAN ANYONE EVER NEEDS